Literature DB >> 17121946

Acoustic techniques for assessing the Optison destruction threshold.

Tyrone M Porter1, Denise A B Smith, Christy K Holland.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify the pressure threshold for the destruction of Optison (octafluoropropane contrast agent; Amersham Health, Princeton, NJ) using a laboratory-assembled 3.5-MHz pulsed ultrasound system and a clinical diagnostic ultrasound scanner.
METHODS: A 3.5-MHz focused transducer and a linear array with a center frequency of 6.9 MHz were positioned confocally and at 90 degrees to each other in a tank of deionized water. Suspensions of Optison (5-8x10(4) microbubbles/mL) were insonated with 2-cycle pulses from the 3.5-MHz transducer (peak rarefactional pressure, or Pr, from 0.0, or inactive, to 0.6 MPa) while being interrogated with fundamental B-mode imaging pulses (mechanical index, or MI,=0.04). Scattering received by the 3.5-MHz transducer or the linear array was quantified as mean backscattered intensity or mean digital intensity, respectively, and fit with exponential decay functions (Ae-kt+N, where A+N was the amplitude at time 0; N, background echogenicity; and k, decay constant). By analyzing the decay constants statistically, a pressure threshold for Optison destruction due to acoustically driven diffusion was identified.
RESULTS: The decay constants determined from quantified 3.5-MHz radio frequency data and B-mode images were in good agreement. The peak rarefactional pressure threshold for Optison destruction due to acoustically driven diffusion at 3.5 MHz was 0.15 MPa (MI=0.08). Furthermore, the rate of Optison destruction increased with increasing 3.5-MHz exposure pressure output.
CONCLUSIONS: Optison destruction was quantified with a laboratory-assembled 3.5-MHz ultrasound system and a clinical diagnostic ultrasound scanner. The pressure threshold for acoustically driven diffusion was identified, and 3 distinct mechanisms of ultrasound contrast agent destruction were observed with acoustic techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17121946      PMCID: PMC1939689          DOI: 10.7863/jum.2006.25.12.1519

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Ultrasound Med        ISSN: 0278-4297            Impact factor:   2.153


  15 in total

1.  Quantification of microbubble destruction of three fluorocarbon-filled ultrasonic contrast agents.

Authors:  C M Moran; T Anderson; S D Pye; V Sboros; W N McDicken
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.998

2.  Threshold of fragmentation for ultrasonic contrast agents.

Authors:  J E Chomas; P Dayton; D May; K Ferrara
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.170

3.  Mechanisms of contrast agent destruction.

Authors:  J E Chomas; P Dayton; J Allen; K Morgan; K W Ferrara
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.725

4.  Validation of ultrasound contrast destruction imaging for flow quantification.

Authors:  Olivier Lucidarme; Yuko Kono; Jacqueline Corbeil; Sang-Hee Choi; Robert F Mattrey
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.998

5.  A comparison of the fragmentation thresholds and inertial cavitation doses of different ultrasound contrast agents.

Authors:  Wen-Shiang Chen; Thomas J Matula; Andrew A Brayman; Lawrence A Crum
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  In vitro characterization of liposomes and Optison by acoustic scattering at 3.5 MHz.

Authors:  Constantin-C Coussios; Christy K Holland; Ludwika Jakubowska; Shao-Ling Huang; Robert C MacDonald; Ashwin Nagaraj; David D McPherson
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.998

7.  Technique for generation of unipolar ultrasonic pulses.

Authors:  D O Thompson; D K Hsu
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.725

8.  Optical and acoustical observations of the effects of ultrasound on contrast agents.

Authors:  P A Dayton; K E Morgan; A L Klibanov; G H Brandenburger; K W Ferrara
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.725

9.  Quantification of myocardial blood flow with ultrasound-induced destruction of microbubbles administered as a constant venous infusion.

Authors:  K Wei; A R Jayaweera; S Firoozan; A Linka; D M Skyba; S Kaul
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1998-02-10       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Physical and biochemical stability of Optison, an injectable ultrasound contrast agent.

Authors:  S Podell; C Burrascano; M Gaal; B Golec; J Maniquis; P Mehlhaff
Journal:  Biotechnol Appl Biochem       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.431

View more
  16 in total

1.  Passive cavitation imaging with ultrasound arrays.

Authors:  Vasant A Salgaonkar; Saurabh Datta; Christy K Holland; T Douglas Mast
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Ultrasound-mediated delivery of echogenic immunoliposomes to porcine vascular smooth muscle cells in vivo.

Authors:  Susan T Laing; Hyunggun Kim; Jonathan A Kopechek; Devang Parikh; Shaoling Huang; Melvin E Klegerman; Christy K Holland; David D McPherson
Journal:  J Liposome Res       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.648

3.  Loss of gas from echogenic liposomes exposed to pulsed ultrasound.

Authors:  Jason L Raymond; Ying Luan; Tao Peng; Shao-Ling Huang; David D McPherson; Michel Versluis; Nico de Jong; Christy K Holland
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Optimization of Contrast-to-Tissue Ratio Through Pulse Windowing in Dual-Frequency "Acoustic Angiography" Imaging.

Authors:  Brooks D Lindsey; Sarah E Shelton; Paul A Dayton
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 2.998

5.  Relationship between cavitation and loss of echogenicity from ultrasound contrast agents.

Authors:  Kirthi Radhakrishnan; Kenneth B Bader; Kevin J Haworth; Jonathan A Kopechek; Jason L Raymond; Shao-Ling Huang; David D McPherson; Christy K Holland
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Loss of echogenicity and onset of cavitation from echogenic liposomes: pulse repetition frequency independence.

Authors:  Kirthi Radhakrishnan; Kevin J Haworth; Tao Peng; David D McPherson; Christy K Holland
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 2.998

7.  Scavenging dissolved oxygen via acoustic droplet vaporization.

Authors:  Kirthi Radhakrishnan; Christy K Holland; Kevin J Haworth
Journal:  Ultrason Sonochem       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 7.491

8.  On the relationship between microbubble fragmentation, deflation and broadband superharmonic signal production.

Authors:  Brooks D Lindsey; Juan D Rojas; Paul A Dayton
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 2.998

9.  Gauging the likelihood of stable cavitation from ultrasound contrast agents.

Authors:  Kenneth B Bader; Christy K Holland
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Ultrasound-triggered release of recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator from echogenic liposomes.

Authors:  Denise A B Smith; Sampada S Vaidya; Jonathan A Kopechek; Shao-Ling Huang; Melvin E Klegerman; David D McPherson; Christy K Holland
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.998

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.